Ex Parte Kannan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2016

13783507 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2016)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/783,507 03/04/2013 Kamal Kannan H0037630 4874/116401 4259
92556 7590
HONEYWELL/HUSCH
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
12/23/2016 EXAMINER
YU, JIAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2142
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/23/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
patentservices-us @ honey well, com
amy. hammer @ hu schblackwell .com
pto-chi@huschblackwell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAMAL KANNAN and MANIKANDAN RAMASWAMI
Appeal 2016-001253
Application 13/783,507
Technology Center 2100
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR, Administrative Patent Judge
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the rejection of claims 1—15 and 17—201
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 6. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
appellants acknowledge claim 16 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hughes (US Patent Number 8,766,783
Bl; issued July 1, 2014), Gold (US Patent Application Publication Number
2012/0178431 Al; published July 12, 2012) and Hoyos (US Patent
Application Publication Number 2014/0215558 Al; published July 31,
2014) and chose not to appeal the rejection. Appeal Brief 2.
Appeal 2016-001253
Application 13/783,507
Introduction
The invention is directed to “a user interface for controlling home
automation devices and a method of using a user interface to control home
automation devices.” Specification 1.
Representative Claim (Disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A method comprising:
providing an object to be controlled, the object to be controlled having a first
user interface;
providing a remote control device, the remote control device having a
viewing screen;
the remote control device capturing an image of the object;
the remote control device using the image of the object to recognize the
object;
based on recognition of the object, the remote control device displaying a
second user interface on the viewing screen of the remote control device,
wherein the second user interface is substantially identical to the first user
interface; and
a user of the remote control device controlling the object through the
displayed second user interface.
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1—15 and 17—20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Hughes (US Patent Number 8,766,783
Bl; issued July 1, 2014) and Gold (US Patent Application Publication
2012/0178431 Al; published July 12, 2012). Final Rejection 4—15.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Final Rejection (mailed April 10, 2015), the Appeal Brief
(filed May 6, 2015), the Answer (mailed October 23, 2015), and the Reply
2
Appeal 2016-001253
Application 13/783,507
Brief (filed November 4, 2015) for the respective details. We have
considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised
in the Briefs.
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief, except where
noted.
Appellants argue that claims 1—15 and 17—20 differentiates “over”
Hughes/Gold combination because “Hughes is merely directed to apparatus
that identifies and receives operational feedback from remotely controlled
electronics” and “Gold is directed to a generic remote control feature.”
Appeal Brief 6. Appellants argue “In contrast, the claimed invention is
limited to ‘recognition of the object, the remote control device displaying a
second user interface on the viewing screen of the remote control device,
wherein the second user interface is substantially identical to the first user
interface.’” Appeal Brief 7. Appellants also argue “The user interface of a
remote control device is different than the user interface of a home device.”
Appeal Brief 8 (citing Specification, paragraph 4).
Appellants further contend that the obviousness rejection is improper
because neither reference is directed to the problem solved by Appellants’
invention. Appeal Brief 10. We do not find Appellants’ arguments
persuasive and agree with the Examiner’s findings.
The Examiner finds that Hughes teaches a method for remotely
controlling electronics wherein the “user can input command to remotely
3
Appeal 2016-001253
Application 13/783,507
control electronic devices based on recognition of the object through a
second user interface on the remote control device and a user of the remote
control device controlling the object through the second user interface.”
Final Rejection (citing Hughes Figure 5A, column 12, lines 26—28, step
512).2
Hughes Figure 5A is reproduced below:
USse She careers So Mxwim a seoomi srsfiga at She e"-e «r« eSechoffte {
steviees, S
i:
I:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -S
Based of' Msftcond mage, detedmoa tiiat she:igra indicates that §» {
retesssthte eisstfonsc is no? m a state carteSBotsdiag so She cwstsarat. \
I
is fesfiorsse so the ussf iitput, ttmsM an ■sEihooiien w'essencfhg so She
ewnmaod so so® respecti*® eteawrw: devias via a stersti geoateted by t>te
Owi&T&ter s? sm'jrdsfsr.f: with 9ss &p®ci?SKstiops fo? aarciraiirsicsSfig vusiJi If®
respecssfe o <: dews.
5SS
2 “The apparatus receives user input (512) corresponding to a command for a
respective electronic device of the one or more electronic devices.” Hughes,
column 12, lines 26—28.
4
Appeal 2016-001253
Application 13/783,507
Hughes Figure 5 A discloses a flow diagram illustrating methods of
remotely controlling electronic devices. Hughes, column 3, lines 22, 23.
The Examiner relies upon Gold to teach “the remote control device
displaying a second user interface on the viewing screen of the remote
control device, wherein the second user interface is substantially identical to
the first user interface.” Final Rejection (citing Gold, Figures 2A-2C,
paragraphs 20, 21, 31 and 32). Gold discloses:
The present invention relates to systems and methods for
proximity-based remote controls (also, without limitation,
referred to as proximity-based identification communication)
that may be used, for example, to facilitate the identification of a
remotely controllable object and enable a remote control user
interface (RCUI) to be presented by a mobile device that then
allows a user of the mobile device to remotely control the
identified object by means of the remote control user interface.
Gold, paragraph 20.
Gold further discloses that “the enabled remote control user interface
2d may resemble the representative remote control user interface 2d shown
in FIG. 2B (including on/off, volume and channel selection controls).”
Gold, paragraph 32.
The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to an artisan to
modify Hughes by incorporating Gold’s disclosure of duplicating remote
control interfaces to efficiently control remote controllable objects. See
Final Rejection 6—7. We sustain the Examiner obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as, claims 2—15 and 17—20 not separately
argued because the Examiner has supported the legal conclusion of
obviousness by articulating reasoning with rational underpinning. See KSR
5
Appeal 2016-001253
Application 13/783,507
Int’l. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d
at 988).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1—15 and
17-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
6